Inadequacy of law

In a sense the tragic case of rape and brutal killing of a paramedical female student in a running bus in New Delhi last month has give a new direction to the efficacy of law and alerted judicial fraternity all over the country including the judges of the courts. It is now acknowledged at different levels that the existing laws governing at least two situations are either inadequate or not uniform. In either case they demand revisiting with a sense of urgency so that justice is done. The two areas are security of the women and laws governing terrorism. Views expressed by Supreme Court Judge Justice Chelameswar while speaking at an interface organized by the Bar Council of India in collaboration with the State Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh in Hyderabad indicate that even the highest level of judicial structure in the country is seriously alive to the inadequacy of law in these areas and the need to address it without loss of time.
The fact of the matter is that the general public wants quick action and justice in cases of extraordinary brutality as has happened with the rape victim in Delhi. But the legal machine moves at a low speed and it must pass through so many bottlenecks before it becomes easy for the judges to pronounce the sentence. Accepting that legal system in any democracy is a system in perennial evolution, the question is of upgrading the study and research in order to make the law responsive to situations. That is the crux of what we call revisiting the existing laws? It is not only the job of the legal advisers to the Government; the Bar Council, too, has much to contribute to the reform pattern of our legal system.
It is more than two decades that our country is made to face the challenge of terrorism. But laws governing this wayward phenomenon of human nature differ from state to state. There appears little uniformity in their content and application. This shall have to be removed and a semblance of uniformity brought about. Justice Chelameswar has very courageously said that sentencing was the least defined area in the law and was different from one state to another.
Another question that arises is that of pronouncing capital punishment in cases of rape, brutalities and terrorist acts. The Delhi rape case has shown that even the saner elements in civil society expressed that stringent rules of accountability would be a deterrent for such heinous crimes and the courts should not hesitate to take recourse to that. But on the other hand, we find that international community is of opinion that capital punishment should be abolished. In the face of these two divergent views, it is for the legal fraternity especially the bar association in the country to come out with a balanced view on this area of legal dispensation. It also means that fuller awareness has to be brought to the civil society on these issues. Better legal awareness among the people could help them take more pragmatic and realistic view of all legal implications and the necessity of enforcing the law of the land. The debate on these issues has already begun in our society at official as well as at non-official level. Various shades of opinion are expressed and a consensual opinion has yet to be framed. We should not get panicky at the comprehensive debate that has ensued because the question of capital punishment is a most serious question and has to be dealt with utmost care. This is a time consuming subject and as the debate has lapsed into public domain, we are sanguine that a very balanced, reasonable and justifiable opinion will emerge that will have universal application for all parts of the country. The address of Justice Chelameswar in the Bar Council in Hyderabad is of much significance to the entire legal system in the country.

Follow our WhatsApp channel